Syria a no-win for either party in 2014

For many lawmakers, the vote is looking like an all-risk, no-reward proposition. | AP Photo

But members of Congress who vote “no” risk appearing timid in the face of a foreign dictator seen as taunting the United States.

Many of those swing district lawmakers aren’t committing their vote yet. Democratic Rep. Scott Peters, who’s facing a tough 2014 reelection race in a military-heavy San Diego-area district, said in a statement that “San Diegans have paid a particularly heavy price for our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade… I personally look forward to a fully informed discussion in the coming weeks.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

GOP Rep. Scott Rigell, who represents a Norfolk, Va.-area district with a heavy military presence, praised Obama for seeking congressional approval and called it “good for every American, especially, I believe, for those who wear our nation’s uniform and would be called upon to execute any order that the President might issue.”

Like Peters, Rigell, who is running for reelection in a district that Obama carried last year, gave little indication as to whether he would back the intervention.

If there is tentativeness from party leaders about how to engage on the debate, it’s in part because there are deep disagreements within their ranks about whether America should again take on the role as the world’s good cop.

Since Vietnam, the Democratic Party has found itself torn between its anti-war and hawkish factions. Those House and Senate members who take Obama’s side and cast votes in favor of intervention will inevitably face criticism from liberals.

And, increasingly, there are splits in the GOP on the question of military involvement abroad. Two of the loudest voices in the Republican Party in favor of a broad U.S. role in Syria have been Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, two longstanding GOP hawks. But they have found themselves at odds with the libertarian wing of the party, led by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, which believes Syria’s problems aren’t the U.S.’s problem.

“Republicans are in a bit of a funny spot,” Anderson said. “Some don’t want to get involved, but then there’s the John McCain camp.”

Most strategists say it’s hard to see where Syria fits in the 2014 issue matrix. While the intervention debate will be front and center when both chambers return next week, both parties want to pivot quickly to the issues that are likely to drive the midterm agenda. With concerns at home — particularly the nation’s still-recovering economy — still at the forefront, there’s little desire to inject Syria into the conversation.

“I think it would be hard to run a campaign on this,” Anderson said. “It’s way down the list.”

If there is a pol who stands to gain from the debate, some argue, it’s Obama. With the public down on a Congress that struggles to get anything done, the crisis could provide the president a chance to rise above the dysfunction and emerge as a statesman who’s willing to work with both parties when it comes to national security issues.

“It’s a chance for him to seem bipartisan,” Beattie said. “If he’s able to frame it as the right thing to do morally, and it has bipartisan support … it in some ways could be of benefit to him.”